If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

But being twice as fast in a benchmark will have no real benefit, other than enlarging one e-peen and that, only in those benchmarks. Gamers are the biggest market for those cards and they seem to be pretty evenly matched, on the basis of that anandtech comparison, with one getting ahead in some test, while the other excels in others.

Also, the anadtech Bench lists Unigine, with both getting about 55,5. Performed at a lower resolution?

it's more or less a 5ps to 10fps difference i.e equivalent or near enough to not make a difference. That "blows right past" quote is hilarious - yeah 10fps is blowing the competition if you're an OCD framerate nut.

EDIT: The battlefield 3 numbers are accurate if the settings include maxing out antialiasing, which requires more RAM than the gtx580's got. For 8x AA, framerates are much closer. It depends, do you want to pay an extra $200 for 16x AA? 8x AA is actually the highest I go before not being able to make out any differences personally.

It's 17 and 10/19 in those examples. More in others. Overall, it's about a 20-30% difference, though in some cases it's more than a 40% difference.

As for BF3, the Tom's Hardware review shows a 39.7% higher framerate with the GTX 670 than the GTX 580 at 1080p ultra without AA. The higher framerate for the 670 thus obviously has nothing to do with the amount of RAM.

It's 17 and 10/19 in those examples. More in others. Overall, it's about a 20-30% difference, though in some cases it's more than a 40% difference.

As for BF3, the Tom's Hardware review shows a 39.7% higher framerate with the GTX 670 than the GTX 580 at 1080p ultra without AA. The higher framerate for the 670 thus obviously has nothing to do with the amount of RAM.

In the bf3 example the framerates on both cards are above 70fps. When a taxing game is used, the gap goes down to more or less a 5fps-10fps difference. The following games would illustrate this:
Crysis (very high)
Crysis Warhead (enthusiast)
Batman Arkham City /w physx
GTA 4 /w enbseries
Shogun 2
Cities XL

BF3 is a taxing game. Especially at 2560x1600, where the difference Anandtech measured was 17 FPS (44 to 61).
Shogun 2, eh? Anandtech measures a 33% difference at 1900x1200. Kepler cards were/are suffering from a performance bug in Shogun 2 ultra, so don't bring that up. Unless it's to admit that Nvidia are hit by bugs from time to time, just like AMD.

In the bf3 example the framerates on both cards are above 70fps. When a taxing game is used, the gap goes down to more or less a 5fps-10fps difference. The following games would illustrate this:
Crysis (very high)
Crysis Warhead (enthusiast)
Batman Arkham City /w physx
GTA 4 /w enbseries
Shogun 2
Cities XL

I can back up my claim that the difference isn't that big by recording and posting youtube videos. I might do that, but in any case think about this: you're pointing out a 40% increase (at best) gap between a card you can get for $200 used and a $400 card. So for a best case scenario of a 25fps gap (much lower if you count in a bunch of other games) would you seriously recommend the $200 premium?

I can back up my claim that the difference isn't that big by recording and posting youtube videos. I might do that, but in any case think about this: you're pointing out a 40% increase (at best) gap between a card you can get for $200 used and a $400 card. So for a best case scenario of a 25fps gap (much lower if you count in a bunch of other games) would you seriously recommend the $200 premium?

Around here, the GTX 670 retails for as little as 2600 DKK, brand new. Used GTX 580s go for around 1900 DKK. That's a bit more than a $100 difference, or in percentages: 37%. For a ~30% performance increase, new features, warranty etc. In general, that's worth it. I don't know the market for used graphics cards in other countries, sorry. If the difference is bigger, sure, go for old hardware if you don't mind the warranty and so on, and the old stuff still serves up enough performance for your needs.

Ok, thanks to you and all the people who posted. The thing is, I've still decided to go with the 660Ti. Why? Probably the main reason is price, I can get it almost a third cheaper than the store price. If I'd have the choice between the store prices of 660Ti and 7950, I'd probably go for the latter. But, as I said, the price difference vs the performance gain doesn't seem worth it.

As for the other options, like the 670, it's priced almost at twice the price of the 660Ti, the price I'm getting it for, that is.

About the next gen of GPU's, Nvidias Maxell, as I said, has been pushed back to 2014 and I don't really know whether the Kepler "refresh" will bring something worth while. Maybe I'll end up regretting the buy, maybe not. As for AMD, they'll probably have the HD8x out before Nvidia, if it's good, I can always sell the 660Ti and get something new :)

Hey at a third off it's almost reasonably priced, and way better priced than anything else, so go for it :) At that price I'd probably take the compromise too.
What the kepler refresh will bring is vastly improved price/performance, but since you already get a discount it's irrelevant for you.
Right now the amd cards were a dud so nvidia just launched their midrange card (256bit bus instead of 384, and a small 294mm^2 die) and branded it geforce gtx 680, then gimped the rops and bus width for the lower end versions.
Gtx680 only has 3.5B transistors vs 3B in the gtx 580 , considering the massive process node shrink it could have been more than double, which is what you'll see in gk110.

Right now we are being sold 200 euro midrange parts that are cheap to manufacture for 400-500 euros because of a lack of competition, just like amd was pushing their 7970 for a ridiculous 550 euros when it launched 6 months before kepler was ready.

We get it mashakos , you like your gtx 580.... just stop.
I can only scoff at the unengine benchmark results, it's the most irrelevant benchmark out there;
You use that as basis for your double performance bullshit (we are supposed to give advice here, what you are doing is the opposite) and at the same time scoff at the other results that are much closer (and where the 670 wins) with lots of AA (you can extrapolate those results to using SSAA too btw , so they do matter, unlike unengine plebmark)

Then you flip flop and suddenly it's 'the extra performance doesn't matter only a framerate whore will notice'. Again, just stop , for a supposed hardcore pc man you are embarrasing yourself. Even the OP is telling you off now.

Noone gives a shit about getting 80 or 90 fps indeed, but that extra performance does matter in the form of minimum framerates, extra performance always matters. Someone will have to look up a comparison for those between the two cards if they can be arsed, I'm not even going to dignify the idea of buying a 270W gpu in 2012 when there is a 170 W alternative that is faster.

Well, if anyone should wonder, the GPU is very quiet and good for OC if that should be your cup of tea. So, if you can get one at the price I got it ( 215€) and if you got a a 5850 to sell ( got 100€ for it) I'd say it's probably worth it at this point in time, this can all change when new cards are released though, so...check the prices :)